These Mobility Metrics Data Tables are designed to help local leaders in every county and over 450 cities measure their communities’ status and progress towards increasing upward mobility and equity.
The Urban Institute’s Upward Mobility Framework identifies predictors that are strongly correlated with the likelihood that a community’s residents will be able to boost economic and social mobility from poverty. These predictors reflect five essential pillars that support upward mobility.
Metric: Ratio of affordable and available housing units (per 100 households) with low-, very low-, and extremely low-income levels
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Ratio for low-income households
169.9
156.4
142.7
152.5
Ratio for very low-income households
143.6
127.2
97.7
132.5
Ratio for extremely low-income households
113.9
90.8
56.3
73.5
Quality
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research Fair Market Rents and Income Limits, FY 2021; US Census Bureau’s 2021 1-Year American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (via IPUMS); Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time period: 2021)
Metric: Ratio of affordable and available housing units (per 100 households) with low-, very low-, and extremely low-income levels+
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Ratio for low-income households
169.9
156.4
142.7
152.5
Ratio for very low-income households
143.6
127.2
97.7
132.5
Ratio for extremely low-income households
113.9
90.8
56.3
73.5
Quality
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research Fair Market Rents and Income Limits, FY 2021; US Census Bureau’s 2021 1-Year American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (via IPUMS); Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time period: 2021)
Notes: This metric reports the number of housing units affordable for households with low-incomes (below 80 percent of area median income, or AMI), very low-incomes (below 50 percent of AMI), and extremely low-incomes (below 30 percent of AMI) relative to every 100 households with these income levels. Income groups are defined for a local family of 4. Housing units are defined as affordable if the monthly costs do not exceed 30 percent of a household’s income. Values above 100 suggest that there are more affordable housing units than households with those income levels. Values below 100 indicate a shortage of affordable housing for households with those income levels. Housing units are counted as affordable for a given income level regardless of whether they are currently occupied by a household at that income level.
The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Metric: Ratio of affordable and available housing units (per 100 households) with low-, very low-, and extremely low-income levels+
Year
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Ratio for low-income households
2021
12.3
12.3
12.3
12.3
Ratio for very low-income households
2021
12.3
12.3
12.3
12.3
Ratio for extremely low-income households
2021
12.3
12.3
12.3
12.3
Quality
2021
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Ratio for low-income households
2018
169.9
156.4
142.7
152.5
Ratio for very low-income households
2018
143.6
127.2
97.7
132.5
Ratio for extremely low-income households
2018
113.9
90.8
56.3
73.5
Quality
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research Fair Market Rents and Income Limits, FY 2018 & FY 2021; US Census Bureau’s 2018 & 2021 5-Year American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (via IPUMS); Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time periods: 2014-18 & 2017-21)
Notes: This metric reports the number of housing units affordable for households with low-incomes (below 80 percent of area median income, or AMI), very low-incomes (below 50 percent of AMI), and extremely low-incomes (below 30 percent of AMI) relative to every 100 households with these income levels. Income groups are defined for a local family of 4. Housing units are defined as affordable if the monthly costs do not exceed 30 percent of a household’s income. Values above 100 suggest that there are more affordable housing units than households with those income levels. Values below 100 indicate a shortage of affordable housing for households with those income levels. Housing units are counted as affordable for a given income level regardless of whether they are currently occupied by a household at that income level.
The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Metric: Number and share of public-school children who are ever homeless during the school year
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Number homeless
800
940
3,262
1,145
Share homeless
1.7%
1.1%
2.1%
0.9%
Quality
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: US Department of Education Local Education Agency data, SY 2019-20 (via EDFacts Homeless Students Enrolled). (Time period: School Year 2019-20)
Metric: Number and share of public-school children who are ever homeless during the school year
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Number homeless
800
940
3,262
1,145
Lower/Upper bound
(799, 801)
(940, 940)
(3,260, 3,264)
(1,142, 1,148)
Share homeless
1.7%
1.1%
2.1%
0.9%
Quality
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: US Department of Education Local Education Agency data, SY 2019-20 (via EDFacts Homeless Students Enrolled). (Time period: School Year 2019-20)
Notes: The number of homeless students is based on the number of children (age 3 through 12th grade) who are enrolled in public schools and whose primary nighttime residence at any time during a school year was a shelter, transitional housing, or awaiting foster care placement; unsheltered (e.g., a car, park, campground, temporary trailer, or abandoned building); a hotel or motel because of the lack of alternative adequate accommodations; or in housing of other people because of loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason. The share is the percent of public-school students who are experiencing homelessness out of all public-school students.
Metric: Number and share of public-school children who are ever homeless during the school year
Year
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Number homeless
2021
1,234
1,234
1,234
1,234
Lower/Upper bound
2021
(123, 12,345)
(123, 12,345)
(123, 12,345)
(123, 12,345)
Share homeless
2021
12.3%
12.3%
12.3%
12.3%
Quality
2021
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Number homeless
2018
800
940
3,262
1,145
Lower/Upper bound
2018
(799, 801)
(940, 940)
(3,260, 3,264)
(1,142, 1,148)
Share homeless
2018
1.7%
1.1%
2.1%
0.9%
Quality
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: US Department of Education Local Education Agency data, SY 2018-19 & SY 2019-20 (via EDFacts Homeless Students Enrolled). (Time periods: School Years 2018-19 & 2019-20)
Notes: The number of homeless students is based on the number of children (age 3 through 12th grade) who are enrolled in public schools and whose primary nighttime residence at any time during a school year was a shelter, transitional housing, or awaiting foster care placement; unsheltered (e.g., a car, park, campground, temporary trailer, or abandoned building); a hotel or motel because of the lack of alternative adequate accommodations; or in housing of other people because of loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason. The share is the percent of public-school students who are experiencing homelessness out of all public-school students. Data disaggregated by race/ethnicity became available for the first time in SY 2019-20.
Metric: Share of people experiencing poverty who live in high-poverty neighborhoods
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
% in high poverty neighborhoods
11.8%
0.0%
9.5%
10.7%
Quality
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2021 5-Year American Community Survey. (Time period: 2017-21)
Metric: Share of people experiencing poverty who live in high-poverty neighborhoods+
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
% in high poverty neighborhoods
11.8%
0.0%
9.5%
10.7%
Quality
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2021 5-Year American Community Survey. (Time period: 2017-21)
Notes: The share of a city’s or county’s residents living in poverty who also live in high-poverty neighborhoods (defined as census tracts). A high-poverty neighborhood is one in which over 40 percent of the residents live in poverty. People and families are classified as being in poverty if their income (before taxes and excluding capital gains or noncash benefits) is less than their poverty threshold, as defined by the US Census Bureau. Poverty thresholds vary by the size of the family and age of its members and are updated for inflation, but do not vary geographically.
The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Metric: Share of people experiencing poverty who live in high-poverty neighborhoods+
Group
Year
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
% in high poverty neighborhoods
All
2021
11.8%
0.0%
9.5%
10.7%
Quality
All
2021
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
% in high poverty neighborhoods
Black
2021
9.7%
0.0%
8.3%
16.3%
Quality
Black
2021
Marginal
Marginal
Strong
Strong
% in high poverty neighborhoods
Hispanic
2021
22.8%
0.0%
4.7%
14.1%
Quality
Hispanic
2021
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
% in high poverty neighborhoods
Other Races and Ethnicities
2021
14.2%
0.0%
13.0%
12.4%
Quality
Other Races and Ethnicities
2021
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
% in high poverty neighborhoods
White, Non-Hispanic
2021
5.0%
0.0%
12.6%
3.2%
Quality
White, Non-Hispanic
2021
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
% in high poverty neighborhoods
All
2018
11.8%
0.0%
9.5%
10.7%
Quality
All
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
% in high poverty neighborhoods
Black
2018
9.7%
0.0%
8.3%
16.3%
Quality
Black
2018
Marginal
Marginal
Strong
Strong
% in high poverty neighborhoods
Hispanic
2018
22.8%
0.0%
4.7%
14.1%
Quality
Hispanic
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
% in high poverty neighborhoods
Other Races and Ethnicities
2018
14.2%
0.0%
13.0%
12.4%
Quality
Other Races and Ethnicities
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
% in high poverty neighborhoods
White, Non-Hispanic
2018
5.0%
0.0%
12.6%
3.2%
Quality
White, Non-Hispanic
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2018 & 2021 5-Year American Community Survey. (Time periods: 2014-18 & 2017-21)
Notes: The share of a city’s or county’s residents living in poverty who also live in high-poverty neighborhoods (defined as census tracts). A high-poverty neighborhood is one in which over 40 percent of the residents live in poverty. People and families are classified as being in poverty if their income (before taxes and excluding capital gains or noncash benefits) is less than their poverty threshold, as defined by the US Census Bureau. Poverty thresholds vary by the size of the family and age of its members and are updated for inflation, but do not vary geographically.
’Black’ includes Black Hispanics. ‘Other Races and Ethnicities’ includes those of races not explicitly listed and those of multiple races. Those who identify as other race or multiple races and Hispanic are counted in both the ‘Hispanic’ and ’Other Races and Ethnicities’ categories.
The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Metric: Index of people’s exposure to neighbors of different races and ethnicities
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
% for Black, Non-Hispanic
90.5%
89.7%
85.1%
62.8%
Quality
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
% for Hispanic
73.1%
89.7%
52.6%
61.9%
Quality
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
% for Other Races and Ethnicities
92.1%
89.8%
85.1%
86.6%
Quality
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
% for White, Non-Hispanic
18.4%
14.0%
40.3%
25.1%
Quality
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2021 5-Year American Community Survey. (Time period: 2017-21)
Metric: Index of people’s exposure to neighbors of different races and ethnicities+
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
% for Black, Non-Hispanic
90.5%
89.7%
85.1%
62.8%
Quality
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
% for Hispanic
73.1%
89.7%
52.6%
61.9%
Quality
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
% for Other Races and Ethnicities
92.1%
89.8%
85.1%
86.6%
Quality
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
% for White, Non-Hispanic
18.4%
14.0%
40.3%
25.1%
Quality
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2021 5-Year American Community Survey. (Time period: 2017-21)
Notes: A set of metrics constructed separately for each racial/ethnic group and reports the average share of that group’s neighbors who are members of other racial/ethnic groups. This is a type of exposure index. For example, an exposure index of 90.0% in the ‘% for Black, Non-Hispanic’ row means that the average Black, non-Hispanic resident has 90.0% of their neighbors within a census tract who have a different race/ethnicity than them. The higher the value, the more exposed to people of different races/ethnicities.
The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Metric: Index of people’s exposure to neighbors of different races and ethnicities+
Year
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
% for Black, Non-Hispanic
2021
12.3%
12.3%
12.3%
12.3%
Quality
2021
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
% for Hispanic
2021
12.3%
12.3%
12.3%
12.3%
Quality
2021
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
% for Other Races and Ethnicities
2021
12.3%
12.3%
12.3%
12.3%
Quality
2021
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
% for White, Non-Hispanic
2021
12.3%
12.3%
12.3%
12.3%
Quality
2021
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
% for Black, Non-Hispanic
2018
90.5%
89.7%
85.1%
62.8%
Quality
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
% for Hispanic
2018
73.1%
89.7%
52.6%
61.9%
Quality
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
% for Other Races and Ethnicities
2018
92.1%
89.8%
85.1%
86.6%
Quality
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
% for White, Non-Hispanic
2018
18.4%
14.0%
40.3%
25.1%
Quality
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2018 & 2021 5-Year American Community Survey. (Time periods: 2014-18 & 2017-21)
Notes: A set of metrics constructed separately for each racial/ethnic group and reports the average share of that group’s neighbors who are members of other racial/ethnic groups. This is a type of exposure index. For example, an exposure index of 90.0% in the ‘% for Black, Non-Hispanic’ row means that the average Black, non-Hispanic resident has 90.0% of their neighbors within a census tract who have a different race/ethnicity than them. The higher the value, the more exposed to people of different races/ethnicities.
The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Metric: Number of membership associations per 10,000 people
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Membership associations
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Quality
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Source: US Census Bureau’s County Business Patterns Survey, 2020 and Population Estimation Program, 2016-20; Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time period: 2016-20)
Metric: Number of membership associations per 10,000 people+
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Membership associations
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Quality
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Source: US Census Bureau’s County Business Patterns Survey, 2020 and Population Estimation Program, 2016-20; Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time period: 2016-20)
Notes: This metric measures the number of membership associations (as self-reported by businesses and organizations) per 10,000 people in a given community.
The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Metric: Ratio of Facebook friends with higher socioeconomic status to Facebook friends with lower socioeconomic status
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Economic connectedness
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Quality
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Source: Opportunity Insights’ Social Capital Atlas, 2022. (Time period: 2022)
Metric: Ratio of Facebook friends with higher socioeconomic status to Facebook friends with lower socioeconomic status+
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Economic connectedness
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Quality
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Source: Opportunity Insights’ Social Capital Atlas, 2022. (Time period: 2022)
Notes: This measures the interconnectivity, by location, between people from different economic backgrounds to estimate “economic connectedness.” Specifically, the metric is twice the average share of high-socioeconomic status (SES) friends (e.g., individuals from households ranked in the top half of all income-earning households) among low-SES individuals (e.g., individuals from households ranked in the lower half of all US households based on income) in a given community. A metric value of 1 represents a community that is perfectly integrated across socioeconomic status, with half of all low-SES individuals’ friends being of high-SES.
The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Source: 2021 Location Affordability Index data based on 2020–22 Illinois vehicle miles traveled data; Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Origin-Destination Employment Statistics data, 2018; US Census Bureau’s 2021 5-Year American Community Survey. (Time period: 2017-22)
Metric: Transit trips index+
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Transit trips
41.5
57.3
73.4
64.9
Quality
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: 2021 Location Affordability Index data based on 2020–22 Illinois vehicle miles traveled data; Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Origin-Destination Employment Statistics data, 2018; US Census Bureau’s 2021 5-Year American Community Survey. (Time period: 2017-22)
Notes: The number of public transit trips taken annually by a three-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the Area Median Income for renters. Values are percentile ranked nationally, with values ranging from 0 to 100 for each census tract. To get a value for the community, we generate a population-weighted average of census tracts within the community. The higher the value, the more likely residents utilize public transit in the community.
The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Metric: Transit trips index+
Group
Year
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Transit trips
All
2021
41.5
57.3
73.4
64.9
Quality
All
2021
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Transit trips
Majority Non-White Tracts
2021
58.1
64.9
75.1
80.1
Quality
Majority Non-White Tracts
2021
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Transit trips
Majority White, Non-Hispanic Tracts
2021
35.2
56.0
69.4
52.7
Quality
Majority White, Non-Hispanic Tracts
2021
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Transit trips
No Majority Race/Ethnicity Tracts
2021
56.5
65.8
74.2
62.4
Quality
No Majority Race/Ethnicity Tracts
2021
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Transit trips
All
2018
41.5
57.3
73.4
64.9
Quality
All
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Transit trips
Majority Non-White Tracts
2018
58.1
64.9
75.1
80.1
Quality
Majority Non-White Tracts
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Transit trips
Majority White, Non-Hispanic Tracts
2018
35.2
56.0
69.4
52.7
Quality
Majority White, Non-Hispanic Tracts
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Transit trips
No Majority Race/Ethnicity Tracts
2018
56.5
65.8
74.2
62.4
Quality
No Majority Race/Ethnicity Tracts
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: 2016 & 2018 Location Affordability Index data using 2013-15 & 2020-22 Illinois vehicle miles travelled data; Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Origin-Destination Employment Statistics data, 2013 & 2014 & 2018; US Census Bureau’s 2016 & 2021 5-Year American Community Survey. (Time periods: 2012-16 & 2017-21)
Notes: The number of public transit trips taken annually by a three-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the Area Median Income for renters. Values are percentile ranked nationally, with values ranging from 0 to 100 for each census tract. To get a value for the community, we generate a population-weighted average of census tracts within the community. The higher the value, the more likely residents utilize public transit in the community.
‘Majority’ means that at least 60% of residents in a census tract are members of the specified group.
The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Source: 2021 Location Affordability Index data based on 2020–22 Illinois vehicle miles traveled data; Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Origin-Destination Employment Statistics data, 2018; US Census Bureau’s 2021 5-Year American Community Survey. (Time period: 2017-22)
Metric: Transportation cost index+
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Transportation cost
65.8
67.4
78.5
83.1
Quality
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: 2021 Location Affordability Index data based on 2020–22 Illinois vehicle miles traveled data; Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Origin-Destination Employment Statistics data, 2018; US Census Bureau’s 2021 5-Year American Community Survey. (Time period: 2017-22)
Notes: Reflects local transportation costs as a share of renters’ incomes. It accounts for both transit and cars. This index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following description: a three-person, single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region (i.e., core-based statistical area). Values are inverted and percentile ranked nationally, with values ranging from 0 to 100. The higher the value, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood.
The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Metric: Transportation cost index+
Group
Year
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Transportation cost
All
2021
65.8
67.4
78.5
83.1
Quality
All
2021
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Transportation cost
Majority Non-White Tracts
2021
80.1
78.4
78.3
90.0
Quality
Majority Non-White Tracts
2021
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Transportation cost
Majority White, Non-Hispanic Tracts
2021
60.2
65.8
76.3
76.5
Quality
Majority White, Non-Hispanic Tracts
2021
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Transportation cost
No Majority Race/Ethnicity Tracts
2021
79.6
77.4
81.9
84.6
Quality
No Majority Race/Ethnicity Tracts
2021
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Transportation cost
All
2018
65.8
67.4
78.5
83.1
Quality
All
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Transportation cost
Majority Non-White Tracts
2018
80.1
78.4
78.3
90.0
Quality
Majority Non-White Tracts
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Transportation cost
Majority White, Non-Hispanic Tracts
2018
60.2
65.8
76.3
76.5
Quality
Majority White, Non-Hispanic Tracts
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Transportation cost
No Majority Race/Ethnicity Tracts
2018
79.6
77.4
81.9
84.6
Quality
No Majority Race/Ethnicity Tracts
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: 2016 & 2018 Location Affordability Index data using 2013-15 & 2020-22 Illinois vehicle miles travelled data; Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Origin-Destination Employment Statistics data, 2013 & 2014 & 2018; US Census Bureau’s 2016 & 2021 5-Year American Community Survey. (Time periods: 2012-16 & 2017-21)
Notes: Reflects local transportation costs as a share of renters’ incomes. It accounts for both transit and cars. This index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following description: a three-person, single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region (i.e., core-based statistical area). Values are inverted and percentile ranked nationally, with values ranging from 0 to 100. The higher the value, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood.
’Majority’ means that at least 60% of residents in a census tract are members of the specified group.
The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Metric: Share of (3- to 4-year-old) children enrolled in nursery school or preschool
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
% Pre-kindergarten
43.0%
55.3%
49.8%
56.3%
Quality
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2021 5-Year American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (via IPUMS); Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time period: 2017-21)
Metric: Share of (3- to 4-year-old) children enrolled in nursery school or preschool
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
% Pre-kindergarten
43.0%
55.3%
49.8%
56.3%
Confidence Interval
(28.4%, 57.6%)
(45.1%, 65.4%)
(43.8%, 55.8%)
(48.7%, 63.8%)
Quality
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2021 5-Year American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (via IPUMS); Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time period: 2017-21)
Notes: The share of a community’s children aged three to four who are enrolled in nursery or preschool.
Metric: Share of (3- to 4-year-old) children enrolled in nursery school or preschool
Group
Year
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
% Pre-kindergarten
All
2021
43.0%
55.3%
49.8%
56.3%
Confidence Interval
All
2021
(28.4%, 57.6%)
(45.1%, 65.4%)
(43.8%, 55.8%)
(48.7%, 63.8%)
Quality
All
2021
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
% Pre-kindergarten
Black, Non-Hispanic
2021
NA
NA
45.6%
75.2%
Confidence Interval
Black, Non-Hispanic
2021
NA
NA
(34.6%, 56.7%)
(67.1%, 83.4%)
Quality
Black, Non-Hispanic
2021
NA
NA
Weak
Strong
% Pre-kindergarten
Hispanic
2021
34.8%
NA
36.6%
49.8%
Confidence Interval
Hispanic
2021
(21.2%, 48.5%)
NA
(32.4%, 40.7%)
(42.9%, 56.6%)
Quality
Hispanic
2021
Weak
NA
Strong
Strong
% Pre-kindergarten
Other Races and Ethnicities
2021
NA
54.4%
56.0%
59.7%
Confidence Interval
Other Races and Ethnicities
2021
NA
(39.1%, 69.6%)
(48.0%, 64.0%)
(50.5%, 68.8%)
Quality
Other Races and Ethnicities
2021
NA
Weak
Strong
Strong
% Pre-kindergarten
White, Non-Hispanic
2021
50.9%
54.4%
61.5%
66.5%
Confidence Interval
White, Non-Hispanic
2021
(43.0%, 58.7%)
(49.5%, 59.3%)
(57.5%, 65.5%)
(62.0%, 71.0%)
Quality
White, Non-Hispanic
2021
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
% Pre-kindergarten
All
2018
43.0%
55.3%
49.8%
56.3%
Confidence Interval
All
2018
(28.4%, 57.6%)
(45.1%, 65.4%)
(43.8%, 55.8%)
(48.7%, 63.8%)
Quality
All
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
% Pre-kindergarten
Black, Non-Hispanic
2018
NA
NA
45.6%
75.2%
Confidence Interval
Black, Non-Hispanic
2018
NA
NA
(34.6%, 56.7%)
(67.1%, 83.4%)
Quality
Black, Non-Hispanic
2018
NA
NA
Weak
Strong
% Pre-kindergarten
Hispanic
2018
34.8%
NA
36.6%
49.8%
Confidence Interval
Hispanic
2018
(21.2%, 48.5%)
NA
(32.4%, 40.7%)
(42.9%, 56.6%)
Quality
Hispanic
2018
Weak
NA
Strong
Strong
% Pre-kindergarten
Other Races and Ethnicities
2018
NA
54.4%
56.0%
59.7%
Confidence Interval
Other Races and Ethnicities
2018
NA
(39.1%, 69.6%)
(48.0%, 64.0%)
(50.5%, 68.8%)
Quality
Other Races and Ethnicities
2018
NA
Weak
Strong
Strong
% Pre-kindergarten
White, Non-Hispanic
2018
50.9%
54.4%
61.5%
66.5%
Confidence Interval
White, Non-Hispanic
2018
(43.0%, 58.7%)
(49.5%, 59.3%)
(57.5%, 65.5%)
(62.0%, 71.0%)
Quality
White, Non-Hispanic
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2018 & 2021 5-Year American Community Survey (via IPUMS); Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time period: 2014-18 & 2017-21)
Notes: The share of a community’s children aged three to four who are enrolled in nursery or preschool.
Metric: Average per grade change in English Language Arts achievement between third and eighth grades
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Annual ELA achievement
0.92
1.04
0.96
1.12
Quality
Strong
Strong
Strong
Weak
Source: Stanford Education Data Archive, SY 2017-18 (Version 4.1; Reardon, S. F. et al. 2021; retrieved from http://purl.stanford.edu/db586ns4974) (Time period: School Year 2017-18)
Metric: Average per grade change in English Language Arts achievement between third and eighth grades
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Annual ELA achievement
0.92
1.04
0.96
1.12
Lower/Upper bound
(0.87, 0.97)
(0.99, 1.08)
(0.94, 0.99)
(1.03, 1.20)
Quality
Strong
Strong
Strong
Weak
Source: Stanford Education Data Archive, SY 2017-18 (Version 4.1; Reardon, S. F. et al. 2021; retrieved from http://purl.stanford.edu/db586ns4974) (Time period: School Year 2017-18)
Notes: The average per year improvement in English/language arts (reading comprehension and written expression) among public school students between the third and eighth grades. Assessments are normalized such that a typical learning growth is roughly 1 grade level per year. ‘1’ indicates a community is learning at an average rate; below 1 is slower than average, and above 1 is faster than average.
Metric: Average per grade change in English Language Arts achievement between third and eighth grades
Group
Year
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Annual ELA achievement
All
2021
0.92
1.04
0.96
1.12
Lower/Upper bound
All
2021
(0.87, 0.97)
(0.99, 1.08)
(0.94, 0.99)
(1.03, 1.20)
Quality
All
2021
Strong
Strong
Strong
Weak
Annual ELA achievement
Black, Non-Hispanic
2021
0.90
1.10
1.02
1.09
Lower/Upper bound
Black, Non-Hispanic
2021
(0.77, 1.04)
(0.87, 1.33)
(0.95, 1.08)
(0.92, 1.25)
Quality
Black, Non-Hispanic
2021
Strong
Marginal
Strong
Weak
Annual ELA achievement
Hispanic
2021
0.92
1.01
0.91
1.12
Lower/Upper bound
Hispanic
2021
(0.81, 1.04)
(0.87, 1.16)
(0.89, 0.94)
(0.98, 1.26)
Quality
Hispanic
2021
Strong
Strong
Strong
Weak
Annual ELA achievement
White, Non-Hispanic
2021
0.92
1.03
1.03
1.15
Lower/Upper bound
White, Non-Hispanic
2021
(0.86, 0.97)
(0.98, 1.07)
(0.98, 1.07)
(1.05, 1.25)
Quality
White, Non-Hispanic
2021
Strong
Strong
Strong
Weak
Annual ELA achievement
All
2018
0.92
1.04
0.96
1.12
Lower/Upper bound
All
2018
(0.87, 0.97)
(0.99, 1.08)
(0.94, 0.99)
(1.03, 1.20)
Quality
All
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Weak
Annual ELA achievement
Black, Non-Hispanic
2018
0.90
1.10
1.02
1.09
Lower/Upper bound
Black, Non-Hispanic
2018
(0.77, 1.04)
(0.87, 1.33)
(0.95, 1.08)
(0.92, 1.25)
Quality
Black, Non-Hispanic
2018
Strong
Marginal
Strong
Weak
Annual ELA achievement
Hispanic
2018
0.92
1.01
0.91
1.12
Lower/Upper bound
Hispanic
2018
(0.81, 1.04)
(0.87, 1.16)
(0.89, 0.94)
(0.98, 1.26)
Quality
Hispanic
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Weak
Annual ELA achievement
White, Non-Hispanic
2018
0.92
1.03
1.03
1.15
Lower/Upper bound
White, Non-Hispanic
2018
(0.86, 0.97)
(0.98, 1.07)
(0.98, 1.07)
(1.05, 1.25)
Quality
White, Non-Hispanic
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Weak
Source: Stanford Education Data Archive, SY 2016-17 & SY 2017-18 (Version 4.1; Reardon, S. F. et al. 2021; retrieved from http://purl.stanford.edu/db586ns4974) (Time period: School Years 2016-17 & 2017-18)
Notes: The average per year improvement in English/language arts (reading comprehension and written expression) among public school students between the third and eighth grades. Assessments are normalized such that a typical learning growth is roughly 1 grade level per year. ‘1’ indicates a community is learning at an average rate; below 1 is slower than average, and above 1 is faster than average.
Research suggests that annual improvement in English for Hispanic children will exceed those of White, Non-Hispanic children because Hispanic children, on average, start with lower levels of English language skills and can improve more quickly than children with higher baseline skills.
Research suggests that annual improvement in English for students in low-income or economically disadvantaged households will exceed those of non-economically disadvantaged households because students in less advantaged households, on average, start with lower levels of English language skills and can improve more quickly than children with higher baseline skills. ‘Low-income’ means students are determined to be eligible for their schools’ free and reduced-price meals under the National School Lunch Program.
Metric: Average per grade change in English Language Arts achievement between third and eighth grades
Group
Year
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Annual ELA achievement
All
2021
0.92
1.04
0.96
1.12
Lower/Upper bound
All
2021
(0.87, 0.97)
(0.99, 1.08)
(0.94, 0.99)
(1.03, 1.20)
Quality
All
2021
Strong
Strong
Strong
Weak
Annual ELA achievement
Low Income
2021
0.94
1.00
0.91
1.15
Lower/Upper bound
Low Income
2021
(0.85, 1.03)
(0.92, 1.09)
(0.88, 0.94)
(1.03, 1.27)
Quality
Low Income
2021
Strong
Strong
Strong
Weak
Annual ELA achievement
Not Low-Income
2021
0.94
1.07
0.98
1.27
Lower/Upper bound
Not Low-Income
2021
(0.88, 1.00)
(1.02, 1.12)
(0.94, 1.02)
(1.07, 1.47)
Quality
Not Low-Income
2021
Strong
Strong
Strong
Weak
Annual ELA achievement
All
2018
0.92
1.04
0.96
1.12
Lower/Upper bound
All
2018
(0.87, 0.97)
(0.99, 1.08)
(0.94, 0.99)
(1.03, 1.20)
Quality
All
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Weak
Annual ELA achievement
Low Income
2018
0.94
1.00
0.91
1.15
Lower/Upper bound
Low Income
2018
(0.85, 1.03)
(0.92, 1.09)
(0.88, 0.94)
(1.03, 1.27)
Quality
Low Income
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Weak
Annual ELA achievement
Not Low-Income
2018
0.94
1.07
0.98
1.27
Lower/Upper bound
Not Low-Income
2018
(0.88, 1.00)
(1.02, 1.12)
(0.94, 1.02)
(1.07, 1.47)
Quality
Not Low-Income
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Weak
Source: Stanford Education Data Archive, SY 2016-17 & SY 2017-18 (Version 4.1; Reardon, S. F. et al. 2021; retrieved from http://purl.stanford.edu/db586ns4974) (Time period: School Years 2016-17 & 2017-18)
Notes: The average per year improvement in English/language arts (reading comprehension and written expression) among public school students between the third and eighth grades. Assessments are normalized such that a typical learning growth is roughly 1 grade level per year. ‘1’ indicates a community is learning at an average rate; below 1 is slower than average, and above 1 is faster than average.
Research suggests that annual improvement in English for Hispanic children will exceed those of White, Non-Hispanic children because Hispanic children, on average, start with lower levels of English language skills and can improve more quickly than children with higher baseline skills.
Research suggests that annual improvement in English for students in low-income or economically disadvantaged households will exceed those of non-economically disadvantaged households because students in less advantaged households, on average, start with lower levels of English language skills and can improve more quickly than children with higher baseline skills. ‘Low-income’ means students are determined to be eligible for their schools’ free and reduced-price meals under the National School Lunch Program.
Metric: Share of students attending high-poverty schools, by student race/ethnicity
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
% for White, non-Hispanic
38.6%
16.3%
21.4%
28.5%
Quality
Strong
Weak
Strong
Strong
% for Black, non-Hispanic
63.1%
54.3%
78.6%
82.2%
Quality
Strong
Weak
Strong
Strong
% for Hispanic
69.3%
43.3%
79.9%
79.7%
Quality
Strong
Weak
Strong
Strong
Source: National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data, SY 2018-19; Urban Institute’s Modeled Estimates of Poverty in Schools (via Education Data Portal v. 0.17.0, Urban Institute, under ODC Attribution License). (Time period: School Year 2018-19)
Metric: Share of students attending high-poverty schools, by student race/ethnicity+
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
% for White, non-Hispanic
38.6%
16.3%
21.4%
28.5%
Quality
Strong
Weak
Strong
Strong
% for Black, non-Hispanic
63.1%
54.3%
78.6%
82.2%
Quality
Strong
Weak
Strong
Strong
% for Hispanic
69.3%
43.3%
79.9%
79.7%
Quality
Strong
Weak
Strong
Strong
Source: National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data, SY 2018-19; Urban Institute’s Modeled Estimates of Poverty in Schools (via Education Data Portal v. 0.17.0, Urban Institute, under ODC Attribution License). (Time period: School Year 2018-19)
Notes: This set of metrics is constructed separately for each racial/ethnic group and reports the share of students attending schools in which over 20 percent of students come from households earning at or below 100% of the Federal Poverty Level.
The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Metric: Share of students attending high-poverty schools, by student race/ethnicity+
Year
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
% for White, non-Hispanic
2021
12.3%
12.3%
12.3%
12.3%
Quality
2021
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
% for Black, non-Hispanic
2021
12.3%
12.3%
12.3%
12.3%
Quality
2021
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
% for Hispanic
2021
12.3%
12.3%
12.3%
12.3%
Quality
2021
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
% for White, non-Hispanic
2018
38.6%
16.3%
21.4%
28.5%
Quality
2018
Strong
Weak
Strong
Strong
% for Black, non-Hispanic
2018
63.1%
54.3%
78.6%
82.2%
Quality
2018
Strong
Weak
Strong
Strong
% for Hispanic
2018
69.3%
43.3%
79.9%
79.7%
Quality
2018
Strong
Weak
Strong
Strong
Source: National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data, SY 2017-18 & 2018-19; Urban Institute’s Modeled Estimates of Poverty in Schools (via Education Data Portal v. 0.17.0, Urban Institute, under ODC Attribution License). (Time periods: School Years 2017-18 & 2018-19)
Notes: This set of metrics is constructed separately for each racial/ethnic group and reports the share of students attending schools in which over 20 percent of students come from households earning at or below 100% of the Federal Poverty Level.
The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Metric: Share of 19- and 20-year-olds with a high school degree
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
% HS degree
90.7%
94.0%
90.8%
89.9%
Quality
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2021 5-Year American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (via IPUMS); Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time period: 2017-21)
Metric: Share of 19- and 20-year-olds with a high school degree
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
% HS degree
90.7%
94.0%
90.8%
89.9%
Confidence Interval
(82.5%, 98.9%)
(88.7%, 99.4%)
(87.1%, 94.6%)
(85.0%, 94.9%)
Quality
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2021 5-Year American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (via IPUMS); Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time period: 2017-21)
Notes: The share of 19- and 20-year-olds in a community who have a high school degree.
Metric: Share of 19- and 20-year-olds with a high school degree
Group
Year
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
% HS degree
All
2021
90.7%
94.0%
90.8%
89.9%
Confidence Interval
All
2021
(82.5%, 98.9%)
(88.7%, 99.4%)
(87.1%, 94.6%)
(85.0%, 94.9%)
Quality
All
2021
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
% HS degree
Black, Non-Hispanic
2021
NA
NA
94.8%
89.9%
Confidence Interval
Black, Non-Hispanic
2021
NA
NA
(89.4%, 100.0%)
(84.0%, 95.8%)
Quality
Black, Non-Hispanic
2021
NA
NA
Weak
Strong
% HS degree
Hispanic
2021
82.7%
NA
85.0%
77.2%
Confidence Interval
Hispanic
2021
(72.5%, 92.9%)
NA
(81.5%, 88.5%)
(70.9%, 83.5%)
Quality
Hispanic
2021
Weak
NA
Strong
Strong
% HS degree
Other Races and Ethnicities
2021
NA
91.5%
98.4%
98.2%
Confidence Interval
Other Races and Ethnicities
2021
NA
(82.2%, 100.0%)
(96.3%, 100.0%)
(94.8%, 100.0%)
Quality
Other Races and Ethnicities
2021
NA
Weak
Strong
Weak
% HS degree
White, Non-Hispanic
2021
89.4%
95.1%
97.0%
91.8%
Confidence Interval
White, Non-Hispanic
2021
(84.8%, 94.1%)
(92.8%, 97.5%)
(95.5%, 98.5%)
(89.1%, 94.5%)
Quality
White, Non-Hispanic
2021
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
% HS degree
All
2018
90.7%
94.0%
90.8%
89.9%
Confidence Interval
All
2018
(82.5%, 98.9%)
(88.7%, 99.4%)
(87.1%, 94.6%)
(85.0%, 94.9%)
Quality
All
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
% HS degree
Black, Non-Hispanic
2018
NA
NA
94.8%
89.9%
Confidence Interval
Black, Non-Hispanic
2018
NA
NA
(89.4%, 100.0%)
(84.0%, 95.8%)
Quality
Black, Non-Hispanic
2018
NA
NA
Weak
Strong
% HS degree
Hispanic
2018
82.7%
NA
85.0%
77.2%
Confidence Interval
Hispanic
2018
(72.5%, 92.9%)
NA
(81.5%, 88.5%)
(70.9%, 83.5%)
Quality
Hispanic
2018
Weak
NA
Strong
Strong
% HS degree
Other Races and Ethnicities
2018
NA
91.5%
98.4%
98.2%
Confidence Interval
Other Races and Ethnicities
2018
NA
(82.2%, 100.0%)
(96.3%, 100.0%)
(94.8%, 100.0%)
Quality
Other Races and Ethnicities
2018
NA
Weak
Strong
Weak
% HS degree
White, Non-Hispanic
2018
89.4%
95.1%
97.0%
91.8%
Confidence Interval
White, Non-Hispanic
2018
(84.8%, 94.1%)
(92.8%, 97.5%)
(95.5%, 98.5%)
(89.1%, 94.5%)
Quality
White, Non-Hispanic
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2018 & 2021 5-Year American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (via IPUMS); Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time period: 2014-18 & 2017-21)
Notes: The share of 19- and 20-year-olds in a community who have a high school degree.
Metric: Employment-to-population ratio for adults ages 25 to 54
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Employment to population ratio
84.0%
86.3%
84.0%
83.2%
Quality
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2021 5-Year American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) (via IPUMS); Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time period: 2017-21)
Metric: Employment-to-population ratio for adults ages 25 to 54
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Employment to population ratio
84.0%
86.3%
84.0%
83.2%
Confidence Interval
(81.6%, 86.4%)
(84.7%, 87.9%)
(83.0%, 85.1%)
(81.9%, 84.5%)
Quality
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2021 5-Year American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) (via IPUMS); Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time period: 2017-21)
Notes: The share of adults between the ages of 25 and 54 in a given community who are employed.
Metric: Employment-to-population ratio for adults ages 25 to 54
Group
Year
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Employment to population ratio
All
2021
84.0%
86.3%
84.0%
83.2%
Confidence Interval
All
2021
(81.6%, 86.4%)
(84.7%, 87.9%)
(83.0%, 85.1%)
(81.9%, 84.5%)
Quality
All
2021
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Employment to population ratio
Black, Non-Hispanic
2021
79.4%
80.3%
81.6%
77.8%
Confidence Interval
Black, Non-Hispanic
2021
(73.7%, 85.1%)
(75.7%, 84.9%)
(79.5%, 83.7%)
(75.9%, 79.7%)
Quality
Black, Non-Hispanic
2021
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Employment to population ratio
Hispanic
2021
73.7%
76.9%
80.7%
73.5%
Confidence Interval
Hispanic
2021
(69.7%, 77.6%)
(72.7%, 81.1%)
(79.7%, 81.6%)
(71.7%, 75.3%)
Quality
Hispanic
2021
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Employment to population ratio
Other Races and Ethnicities
2021
76.7%
79.0%
81.5%
78.3%
Confidence Interval
Other Races and Ethnicities
2021
(71.0%, 82.3%)
(75.7%, 82.3%)
(80.0%, 83.0%)
(76.2%, 80.4%)
Quality
Other Races and Ethnicities
2021
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Employment to population ratio
White, Non-Hispanic
2021
84.8%
84.4%
86.3%
85.4%
Confidence Interval
White, Non-Hispanic
2021
(83.6%, 85.9%)
(83.6%, 85.2%)
(85.7%, 86.8%)
(84.8%, 86.1%)
Quality
White, Non-Hispanic
2021
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Employment to population ratio
All
2018
84.0%
86.3%
84.0%
83.2%
Confidence Interval
All
2018
(81.6%, 86.4%)
(84.7%, 87.9%)
(83.0%, 85.1%)
(81.9%, 84.5%)
Quality
All
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Employment to population ratio
Black, Non-Hispanic
2018
79.4%
80.3%
81.6%
77.8%
Confidence Interval
Black, Non-Hispanic
2018
(73.7%, 85.1%)
(75.7%, 84.9%)
(79.5%, 83.7%)
(75.9%, 79.7%)
Quality
Black, Non-Hispanic
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Employment to population ratio
Hispanic
2018
73.7%
76.9%
80.7%
73.5%
Confidence Interval
Hispanic
2018
(69.7%, 77.6%)
(72.7%, 81.1%)
(79.7%, 81.6%)
(71.7%, 75.3%)
Quality
Hispanic
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Employment to population ratio
Other Races and Ethnicities
2018
76.7%
79.0%
81.5%
78.3%
Confidence Interval
Other Races and Ethnicities
2018
(71.0%, 82.3%)
(75.7%, 82.3%)
(80.0%, 83.0%)
(76.2%, 80.4%)
Quality
Other Races and Ethnicities
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Employment to population ratio
White, Non-Hispanic
2018
84.8%
84.4%
86.3%
85.4%
Confidence Interval
White, Non-Hispanic
2018
(83.6%, 85.9%)
(83.6%, 85.2%)
(85.7%, 86.8%)
(84.8%, 86.1%)
Quality
White, Non-Hispanic
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2018 & 2021 5-Year American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (via IPUMS); Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time period: 2014-18 & 2017-21)
Notes: The share of adults between the ages of 25 and 54 in a given community who are employed.
Metric: Ratio of pay on an average job to the cost of living
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Ratio of pay to living wage
0.74
0.80
1.08
0.99
Quality
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) data, 2021; Massachusetts Institute of Technology Living Wage Calculator, 2022. (Time period: 2021)
Metric: Ratio of pay on an average job to the cost of living+
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Ratio of pay to living wage
0.74
0.80
1.08
0.99
Quality
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) data, 2021; Massachusetts Institute of Technology Living Wage Calculator, 2022. (Time period: 2021)
Notes: What an average job pays relative to the cost of living in a particular area. The metric is computed by dividing the average earnings for a job in an area by the cost of meeting a family of three’s (for a 1 adult and 2 child household) basic expenses in that area. Ratio values greater than 1 indicate that the average job pays more than the cost of living, while values less than 1 suggest the average job pays less than the cost of living.
For the 2021 metric, we were only able to access the 2022 Living Wage data. We deflated the 2022 data to 2021 using the consumer price index (for all urban consumers), for a correct comparison with the 2021 QCEW.
The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Metric: Ratio of pay on an average job to the cost of living+
Year
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Ratio of pay to living wage
2021
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
Quality
2021
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Ratio of pay to living wage
2018
0.74
0.80
1.08
0.99
Quality
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) data, 2018 & 2021; Massachusetts Institute of Technology Living Wage Calculator, 2018 & 2022. (Time period: 2018 & 2021)
Notes: What an average job pays relative to the cost of living in a particular area. The metric is computed by dividing the average earnings for a job in an area by the cost of meeting a family of three’s (for a 1 adult and 2 child household) basic expenses in that area. Ratio values greater than 1 indicate that the average job pays more than the cost of living, while values less than 1 suggest the average job pays less than the cost of living.
For the 2021 metric, we were only able to access the 2022 Living Wage data. We deflated the 2022 data to 2021 using the consumer price index (for all urban consumers), for a correct comparison with the 2021 QCEW.
The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Metric: Household income at the 20th, 50th, and 80th percentiles
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
20th Percentile
$30,798
$37,586
$31,811
$27,354
50th Percentile
$70,917
$88,139
$75,476
$73,146
80th Percentile
$131,723
$172,226
$155,004
$146,899
Quality
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2021 1-Year American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (via IPUMS); Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time Period: 2021)
Metric: Household income at the 20th, 50th, and 80th percentiles*
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
20th Percentile
$30,798
$37,586
$31,811
$27,354
50th Percentile
$70,917
$88,139
$75,476
$73,146
80th Percentile
$131,723
$172,226
$155,004
$146,899
Quality
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2021 1-Year American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (via IPUMS); Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time Period: 2021)
Notes: To identify income percentiles, all households are ranked by income from lowest to highest. The income level threshold for the poorest 20 percent of households is the value at the 20th percentile. The 50th percentile income threshold indicates the median, with half of households earning less and half of households earning more. The income level threshold for the richest 20 percent of households is the value at the 80th percentile. The difference in income between households at the 20th percentile and the 80th percentile illustrates the level of local economic inequality.
The Confidence Interval for this metric is not available at this time.
Metric: Household income at the 20th, 50th, and 80th percentiles*
Group
Year
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
20th Percentile
All
2021
$30,798
$37,586
$31,811
$27,354
50th Percentile
All
2021
$70,917
$88,139
$75,476
$73,146
80th Percentile
All
2021
$131,723
$172,226
$155,004
$146,899
Quality
All
2021
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
20th Percentile
Black, Non-Hispanic
2021
$31,795
$20,768
$19,857
$20,349
50th Percentile
Black, Non-Hispanic
2021
$69,701
$53,359
$48,629
$48,967
80th Percentile
Black, Non-Hispanic
2021
$126,405
$106,904
$95,386
$97,087
Quality
Black, Non-Hispanic
2021
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
20th Percentile
Hispanic
2021
$19,168
$22,405
$24,314
$14,589
50th Percentile
Hispanic
2021
$47,490
$52,841
$51,805
$39,901
80th Percentile
Hispanic
2021
$100,361
$117,140
$99,284
$87,699
Quality
Hispanic
2021
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
20th Percentile
Other Races and Ethnicities
2021
$31,367
$41,157
$31,083
$36,056
50th Percentile
Other Races and Ethnicities
2021
$83,924
$96,979
$84,071
$82,602
80th Percentile
Other Races and Ethnicities
2021
$138,416
$202,093
$168,516
$153,484
Quality
Other Races and Ethnicities
2021
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
20th Percentile
White, Non-Hispanic
2021
$30,604
$39,427
$39,416
$36,263
50th Percentile
White, Non-Hispanic
2021
$68,701
$87,861
$86,536
$85,351
80th Percentile
White, Non-Hispanic
2021
$129,281
$170,127
$173,219
$158,978
Quality
White, Non-Hispanic
2021
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
20th Percentile
All
2018
$30,798
$37,586
$31,811
$27,354
50th Percentile
All
2018
$70,917
$88,139
$75,476
$73,146
80th Percentile
All
2018
$131,723
$172,226
$155,004
$146,899
Quality
All
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
20th Percentile
Black, Non-Hispanic
2018
$31,795
$20,768
$19,857
$20,349
50th Percentile
Black, Non-Hispanic
2018
$69,701
$53,359
$48,629
$48,967
80th Percentile
Black, Non-Hispanic
2018
$126,405
$106,904
$95,386
$97,087
Quality
Black, Non-Hispanic
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
20th Percentile
Hispanic
2018
$19,168
$22,405
$24,314
$14,589
50th Percentile
Hispanic
2018
$47,490
$52,841
$51,805
$39,901
80th Percentile
Hispanic
2018
$100,361
$117,140
$99,284
$87,699
Quality
Hispanic
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
20th Percentile
Other Races and Ethnicities
2018
$31,367
$41,157
$31,083
$36,056
50th Percentile
Other Races and Ethnicities
2018
$83,924
$96,979
$84,071
$82,602
80th Percentile
Other Races and Ethnicities
2018
$138,416
$202,093
$168,516
$153,484
Quality
Other Races and Ethnicities
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
20th Percentile
White, Non-Hispanic
2018
$30,604
$39,427
$39,416
$36,263
50th Percentile
White, Non-Hispanic
2018
$68,701
$87,861
$86,536
$85,351
80th Percentile
White, Non-Hispanic
2018
$129,281
$170,127
$173,219
$158,978
Quality
White, Non-Hispanic
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2018 & 2021 5-Year American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (via IPUMS); Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time Periods: 2014-18 & 2017-21)
Notes: To identify income percentiles, all households are ranked by income from lowest to highest. The income level threshold for the poorest 20 percent of households is the value at the 20th percentile. The 50th percentile income threshold indicates the median, with half of households earning less and half of households earning more. The income level threshold for the richest 20 percent of households is the value at the 80th percentile. The difference in income between households at the 20th percentile and the 80th percentile illustrates the level of local economic inequality.
The Confidence Interval for this metric is not available at this time.
Source: 2022 credit bureau data from Urban Institute’s Debt in America feature. (Time period: 2022)
Metric: Share with debt in collections
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
% with debt
27.9%
22.4%
34.0%
28.3%
Confidence Interval
(26.6%, 29.2%)
(21.6%, 23.2%)
(33.3%, 34.6%)
(27.5%, 29.0%)
Quality
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: 2022 credit bureau data from Urban Institute’s Debt in America feature. (Time period: 2022)
Notes: The county-level measure captures the share of people in an area with a credit bureau record with debt that has progressed from being past-due to being in collections.
Metric: Share with debt in collections
Group
Year
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
% with debt
All
2021
27.9%
22.4%
34.0%
28.3%
Confidence Interval
All
2021
(26.6%, 29.2%)
(21.6%, 23.2%)
(33.3%, 34.6%)
(27.5%, 29.0%)
Quality
All
2021
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
% with debt
Majority Non-White ZIPs
2021
NA
NA
48.8%
53.5%
Confidence Interval
Majority Non-White ZIPs
2021
NA
NA
(47.7%, 50.0%)
(51.8%, 55.3%)
Quality
Majority Non-White ZIPs
2021
NA
NA
Strong
Strong
% with debt
Majority White, Non-Hispanic ZIPs
2021
26.4%
22.4%
20.0%
17.6%
Confidence Interval
Majority White, Non-Hispanic ZIPs
2021
(25.1%, 27.7%)
(21.6%, 23.2%)
(19.1%, 20.9%)
(16.8%, 18.4%)
Quality
Majority White, Non-Hispanic ZIPs
2021
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
% with debt
All
2018
27.9%
22.4%
34.0%
28.3%
Confidence Interval
All
2018
(26.6%, 29.2%)
(21.6%, 23.2%)
(33.3%, 34.6%)
(27.5%, 29.0%)
Quality
All
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
% with debt
Majority Non-White ZIPs
2018
NA
NA
48.8%
53.5%
Confidence Interval
Majority Non-White ZIPs
2018
NA
NA
(47.7%, 50.0%)
(51.8%, 55.3%)
Quality
Majority Non-White ZIPs
2018
NA
NA
Strong
Strong
% with debt
Majority White, Non-Hispanic ZIPs
2018
26.4%
22.4%
20.0%
17.6%
Confidence Interval
Majority White, Non-Hispanic ZIPs
2018
(25.1%, 27.7%)
(21.6%, 23.2%)
(19.1%, 20.9%)
(16.8%, 18.4%)
Quality
Majority White, Non-Hispanic ZIPs
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: 2018 and 2022 credit bureau data from Urban Institute’s Debt in America feature. (Time periods: 2018 & 2022)
Notes: The county-level measure captures the share of people in an area with a credit bureau record with debt that has progressed from being past-due to being in collections.
For county-level 2018 and 2022 data, “majority” means that at least 60% of residents in a zip code are members of the specified population group.
Metric: Ratio of the share of a community’s housing wealth held by a racial or ethnic group to the share of households of the same group
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Black, non-Hispanic Opportunity
12.3%:12.3%
12.3%:12.3%
12.3%:12.3%
12.3%:12.3%
Quality
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Hispanic Opportunity
12.3%:12.3%
12.3%:12.3%
12.3%:12.3%
12.3%:12.3%
Quality
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Other Races and Ethnicities Opportunity
12.3%:12.3%
12.3%:12.3%
12.3%:12.3%
12.3%:12.3%
Quality
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
White, non-Hispanic Opportunity
12.3%:12.3%
12.3%:12.3%
12.3%:12.3%
12.3%:12.3%
Quality
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2021 1-Year American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (via IPUMS); Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time period: 2021)
Metric: Ratio of the share of a community’s housing wealth held by a racial or ethnic group to the share of households of the same group+
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Black, non-Hispanic Opportunity
12.3%:12.3%
12.3%:12.3%
12.3%:12.3%
12.3%:12.3%
Quality
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Hispanic Opportunity
12.3%:12.3%
12.3%:12.3%
12.3%:12.3%
12.3%:12.3%
Quality
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Other Races and Ethnicities Opportunity
12.3%:12.3%
12.3%:12.3%
12.3%:12.3%
12.3%:12.3%
Quality
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
White, non-Hispanic Opportunity
12.3%:12.3%
12.3%:12.3%
12.3%:12.3%
12.3%:12.3%
Quality
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2021 1-Year American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (via IPUMS); Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time period: 2021)
Notes: The percentage to the left of the colon for a given racial group reflects their share of primary-residence housing wealth in a community, and the percentage to the right of the colon reflects the number of households who are headed by a member of that racial group as a share of the community’s total number of households. If the percentage on the left side of the colon is smaller than the percentage on the right side, then that group has less proportionate housing wealth compared to their presence in the community. The greater the gap between these percentages, the more inequality in housing wealth in the community. This metric is based on self-reported housing value, does not account for the extent of mortgage debt, and does not account for other important demographic variations such as differences in age composition across race and ethnic groups, and as such this metric may not fully reflect the size of the actual housing wealth gap.
The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Metric: Ratio of the share of a community’s housing wealth held by a racial or ethnic group to the share of households of the same group+
Year
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Black, non-Hispanic Opportunity
2021
12.3%:12.3%
12.3%:12.3%
12.3%:12.3%
12.3%:12.3%
Quality
2021
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Hispanic Opportunity
2021
12.3%:12.3%
12.3%:12.3%
12.3%:12.3%
12.3%:12.3%
Quality
2021
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Other Races and Ethnicities Opportunity
2021
12.3%:12.3%
12.3%:12.3%
12.3%:12.3%
12.3%:12.3%
Quality
2021
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
White, non-Hispanic Opportunity
2021
12.3%:12.3%
12.3%:12.3%
12.3%:12.3%
12.3%:12.3%
Quality
2021
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Black, non-Hispanic Opportunity
2018
NA
NA
NA
NA
Quality
2018
NA
NA
NA
NA
Hispanic Opportunity
2018
NA
NA
NA
NA
Quality
2018
NA
NA
NA
NA
Other Races and Ethnicities Opportunity
2018
NA
NA
NA
NA
Quality
2018
NA
NA
NA
NA
White, non-Hispanic Opportunity
2018
NA
NA
NA
NA
Quality
2018
NA
NA
NA
NA
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2018 & 2021 1-Year American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (via IPUMS); Missouri Census Data Center Geocorr 2022: Geographic Correspondence Engine. (Time periods: 2018 & 2021)
Notes: The percentage to the left of the colon for a given racial group reflects their share of primary-residence housing wealth in a community, and the percentage to the right of the colon reflects the number of households who are headed by a member of that racial group as a share of the community’s total number of households. If the percentage on the left side of the colon is smaller than the percentage on the right side, then that group has less proportionate housing wealth compared to their presence in the community. The greater the gap between these percentages, the more inequality in housing wealth in the community. This metric is based on self-reported housing value, does not account for the extent of mortgage debt, and does not account for other important demographic variations such as differences in age composition across race and ethnic groups, and as such this metric may not fully reflect the size of the actual housing wealth gap.
The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Metric: Ratio of population per primary care physician
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Ratio of people to physicians
1234:1
1234:1
1234:1
1234:1
Quality
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Source: US Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Area Health Resources File, 2020-21 (via County Health Rankings, 2022). (Time period: 2019)
Metric: Ratio of population per primary care physician+
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Ratio of people to physicians
1234:1
1234:1
1234:1
1234:1
Quality
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Source: US Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Area Health Resources File, 2020-21 (via County Health Rankings, 2022). (Time period: 2019)
Notes: The ratio represents the number of people served by one primary care physician in a county. It assumes the population is equally distributed across physicians and does not account for actual physician patient load. Missing values are reported for counties with population greater than 2,000 and 0 primary care physicians. The metric does not include nurse practitioners, physician assistants, or other primary care providers who are not physicians.
The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Health Statistics, Division of Vital Statistics, Natality data, 2020 (via CDC WONDER). (Time period: 2020)
Metric: Share with low birth weight
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
% Low birth weight
7.5%
7.6%
7.6%
8.1%
Confidence Interval
(6.5%, 8.4%)
(7.0%, 8.3%)
(7.1%, 8.0%)
(7.5%, 8.7%)
Quality
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Health Statistics, Division of Vital Statistics, Natality data, 2020 (via CDC WONDER). (Time period: 2020)
Notes: The share of babies born weighing less than 5 pounds 8 ounces (<2,500 grams) out of all births with available birthweight information.
Metric: Share with low birth weight
Group
Year
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
% Low birth weight
All
2021
7.5%
7.6%
7.6%
8.1%
Confidence Interval
All
2021
(6.5%, 8.4%)
(7.0%, 8.3%)
(7.1%, 8.0%)
(7.5%, 8.7%)
Quality
All
2021
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
% Low birth weight
Black, Non-Hispanic
2021
8.0%
11.9%
13.0%
12.8%
Confidence Interval
Black, Non-Hispanic
2021
(4.2%, 11.7%)
(8.2%, 15.6%)
(11.2%, 14.9%)
(11.2%, 14.5%)
Quality
Black, Non-Hispanic
2021
Marginal
Strong
Strong
Strong
% Low birth weight
Hispanic
2021
8.1%
8.6%
7.4%
8.5%
Confidence Interval
Hispanic
2021
(5.9%, 10.3%)
(6.1%, 11.2%)
(6.8%, 8.1%)
(7.4%, 9.6%)
Quality
Hispanic
2021
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
% Low birth weight
Other Races and Ethnicities
2021
6.7%
10.1%
8.7%
8.8%
Confidence Interval
Other Races and Ethnicities
2021
(3.1%, 10.4%)
(7.4%, 12.7%)
(7.3%, 10.2%)
(7.1%, 10.6%)
Quality
Other Races and Ethnicities
2021
Marginal
Strong
Strong
Strong
% Low birth weight
White, Non-Hispanic
2021
7.2%
7.0%
6.2%
6.0%
Confidence Interval
White, Non-Hispanic
2021
(6.1%, 8.4%)
(6.2%, 7.7%)
(5.6%, 6.8%)
(5.3%, 6.7%)
Quality
White, Non-Hispanic
2021
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
% Low birth weight
All
2018
7.5%
7.6%
7.6%
8.1%
Confidence Interval
All
2018
(6.5%, 8.4%)
(7.0%, 8.3%)
(7.1%, 8.0%)
(7.5%, 8.7%)
Quality
All
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
% Low birth weight
Black, Non-Hispanic
2018
8.0%
11.9%
13.0%
12.8%
Confidence Interval
Black, Non-Hispanic
2018
(4.2%, 11.7%)
(8.2%, 15.6%)
(11.2%, 14.9%)
(11.2%, 14.5%)
Quality
Black, Non-Hispanic
2018
Marginal
Strong
Strong
Strong
% Low birth weight
Hispanic
2018
8.1%
8.6%
7.4%
8.5%
Confidence Interval
Hispanic
2018
(5.9%, 10.3%)
(6.1%, 11.2%)
(6.8%, 8.1%)
(7.4%, 9.6%)
Quality
Hispanic
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
% Low birth weight
Other Races and Ethnicities
2018
6.7%
10.1%
8.7%
8.8%
Confidence Interval
Other Races and Ethnicities
2018
(3.1%, 10.4%)
(7.4%, 12.7%)
(7.3%, 10.2%)
(7.1%, 10.6%)
Quality
Other Races and Ethnicities
2018
Marginal
Strong
Strong
Strong
% Low birth weight
White, Non-Hispanic
2018
7.2%
7.0%
6.2%
6.0%
Confidence Interval
White, Non-Hispanic
2018
(6.1%, 8.4%)
(6.2%, 7.7%)
(5.6%, 6.8%)
(5.3%, 6.7%)
Quality
White, Non-Hispanic
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Health Statistics, Division of Vital Statistics, Natality data, 2018 & 2020 (via CDC WONDER). (Time period: 2018 & 2020)
Notes: The share of babies born weighing less than 5 pounds 8 ounces (<2,500 grams) out of all births with available birthweight information. Race and ethnicity is based on the mother’s characteristics.
Source: US Environmental Protection Agency’s AirToxScreen data, 2018 (based on 2017 National Emissions Inventory data). (Time period: 2017-18)
Metric: Air quality index+
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Air quality index
34.2
42.6
56.4
66.3
Quality
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: US Environmental Protection Agency’s AirToxScreen data, 2018 (based on 2017 National Emissions Inventory data). (Time period: 2017-18)
Notes: The index is a linear combination of standardized EPA estimates of air quality carcinogenic, respiratory, and neurological hazards measured at the census tract level. Values are inverted and percentile ranked nationally and range from 0 to 100. The higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health.
The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Metric: Air quality index+
Group
Year
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Air quality index
All
2018
34.2
42.6
56.4
66.3
Quality
All
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Air quality index
Majority Non-White Tracts
2018
12.5
NA
55.3
53.7
Quality
Majority Non-White Tracts
2018
Strong
NA
Strong
Strong
Air quality index
Majority White, Non-Hispanic Tracts
2018
38.3
43.8
57.4
71.5
Quality
Majority White, Non-Hispanic Tracts
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Air quality index
No Majority Race/Ethnicity Tracts
2018
21.7
32.0
56.5
63.4
Quality
No Majority Race/Ethnicity Tracts
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: Environmental Protection Agency’s National Air Toxics Assessment data, 2014 and AirToxScreen data, 2018 (based on 2014 & 2017 National Emissions Inventory data); US Census Bureau’s 2014 & 2018 5-Year American Community Survey. (Time periods: 2010-14 & 2014-18)
Notes: The index is a linear combination of standardized EPA estimates of air quality carcinogenic, respiratory, and neurological hazards measured at the census tract level. Values are inverted and percentile ranked nationally and range from 0 to 100. The higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health.
‘Majority’ means that at least 60% of residents in a census tract are members of the specified group. ‘High poverty’ means that 40% or more of people in a census tract live in families with incomes below the federal poverty line.
The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Metric: Air quality index+
Group
Year
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Air quality index
All
2018
34.2
42.6
56.4
66.3
Quality
All
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Air quality index
High Poverty Tracts
2018
10.3
NA
50.2
51.5
Quality
High Poverty Tracts
2018
Strong
NA
Strong
Strong
Air quality index
Not High Poverty Tracts
2018
36.3
42.7
57.3
67.8
Quality
Not High Poverty Tracts
2018
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: Environmental Protection Agency’s National Air Toxics Assessment data, 2014 and AirToxScreen data, 2018 (based on 2014 & 2017 National Emissions Inventory data); US Census Bureau’s 2014 & 2018 5-Year American Community Survey. (Time periods: 2010-14 & 2014-18)
Notes: The index is a linear combination of standardized EPA estimates of air quality carcinogenic, respiratory, and neurological hazards measured at the census tract level. Values are inverted and percentile ranked nationally and range from 0 to 100. The higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health.
‘Majority’ means that at least 60% of residents in a census tract are members of the specified group. ‘High poverty’ means that 40% or more of people in a census tract live in families with incomes below the federal poverty line.
The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, 2016-20, drawn from the National Vital Statistics System (via County Health Rankings, 2022). (Time period: 2016-20)
Metric: Deaths due to injury per 100,000 people
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Trauma
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Confidence Interval
(0, 1)
(0, 1)
(0, 1)
(0, 1)
Quality
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, 2016-20, drawn from the National Vital Statistics System (via County Health Rankings, 2022). (Time period: 2016-20)
Notes: Injury deaths is the number of deaths from planned (e.g., homicide or suicide) and unplanned (e.g., motor vehicle deaths) injuries per 100,000 people. Deaths are counted in the county of residence for the person who died, rather than the county where the death occurred. A missing value is reported for counties with fewer than 10 injury deaths in the time frame.
Metric: Share of the voting-age population who turn out to vote
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
% voting
62.2%
72.6%
61.6%
63.1%
Quality
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Election Data and Science Lab, 2020; US Census Bureau’s 2020 5-Year American Community Survey Citizen Voting Age Population Special Tabulation. (Time period: 2016-20)
Metric: Share of the voting-age population who turn out to vote+
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
% voting
62.2%
72.6%
61.6%
63.1%
Quality
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Election Data and Science Lab, 2020; US Census Bureau’s 2020 5-Year American Community Survey Citizen Voting Age Population Special Tabulation. (Time period: 2016-20)
Notes: This metric measures the share of the citizen voting-age population that voted in the most recent presidential election.
The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Metric: Share of the voting-age population who turn out to vote+
Year
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
% voting
2020
12.3%
12.3%
12.3%
12.3%
Quality
2020
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
% voting
2016
62.2%
72.6%
61.6%
63.1%
Quality
2016
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Source: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Election Data and Science Lab, 2016 & 2020; US Census Bureau’s 2016 & 2020 5-Year American Community Survey Citizen Voting Age Population Special Tabulation. (Time periods: 2012-16 & 2016-20)
Notes: This metric measures the share of the citizen voting-age population that voted in the most recent presidential election.
The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Metric: Ratio of the share of local elected officials of a racial or ethnic group to the share of residents of the same racial or ethnic group.Part of this metric is shown. See the notes for information on finalizing this metric.+
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Other Races/Ethnicities
__:12%
__:12%
__:12%
__:12%
Quality
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Black, non-Hispanic
__:12%
__:12%
__:12%
__:12%
Quality
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Hispanic
__:12%
__:12%
__:12%
__:12%
Quality
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
White, non-Hispanic
__:12%
__:12%
__:12%
__:12%
Quality
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Source: US Census Bureau’s 2021 5-Year American Community Survey. (Time period: 2017-21)
Notes: Shown are the share of that racial or ethnic group in your community. The community will need to calculate the missing percentages in order to complete the descriptive representation metric. See the Planning Guide (pg. 27) on how to calculate the missing percentage.
Say that of your 10 elected officials, nine are White, non-Hispanic and your community’s population is half White, non-Hispanic, the metric will read as “90.0%:50.0%.” If the share of local officials is higher than the share of people in the community, then this group is over-represented. If the share of local officials is lower than the share of people in the community, then this group is under-represented. We are presenting this as a ratio of percentages because it provides important context.
The quality index reflects the data quality only of the given value.
The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Metric: Reported property crimes per 100,000 people and reported violent crimes per 100,000 people
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Violent crime
331
128
404
265
Property crime
1,555
1,367
3,030
2,315
Quality
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) National Incident Based Reporting System (via Kaplan J (2021). National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) Data. https://nibrsbook.com/); US Census Bureau’s 2021 1-Year American Community Survey. (Time period: 2021)
Metric: Reported property crimes per 100,000 people and reported violent crimes per 100,000 people+
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Violent crime
331
128
404
265
Property crime
1,555
1,367
3,030
2,315
Quality
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) National Incident Based Reporting System (via Kaplan J (2021). National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) Data. https://nibrsbook.com/); US Census Bureau’s 2021 1-Year American Community Survey. (Time period: 2021)
Notes: Rates are calculated as the number of reported crimes against property or people per 100,000 people. Although these are the best national data source, communities should use their local data if they are available. The FBI cautions against using NIBRS data to rank or compare locales because there are many factors that cause the nature and type of crime to vary from place to place.
The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) National Incident Based Reporting System (via Kaplan J (2021). National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) Data. https://nibrsbook.com/); US Census Bureau’s 2021 1-Year American Community Survey. (Time period: 2021)
Metric: Juvenile arrests per 100,000 juveniles+
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Juvenile arrest rate
3,056.0
2,918.4
4,754.4
3,108.2
Quality
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) National Incident Based Reporting System (via Kaplan J (2021). National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) Data. https://nibrsbook.com/); US Census Bureau’s 2021 1-Year American Community Survey. (Time period: 2021)
Notes: The number of arrests of people aged 10 to 17, for any crime or status offense, per 100,000 people of that age. Because people can be arrested multiple times, the data reports the number of arrests and not people. Although these are the best national data source, communities should use their local data if it is available. The FBI cautions against using NIBRS data to rank or compare locales because there are many factors that cause the nature and type of crime to vary from place to place.
The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Metric: Juvenile arrests per 100,000 juveniles+
Group
Year
Northampton, Pennsylvania
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Travis, Texas
Hartford, Connecticut
Juvenile arrest rate
All
2021
3,056.0
2,918.4
4,754.4
3,108.2
Quality
All
2021
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Juvenile arrest rate
Black
2021
17,097.8
25,806.5
13,303.2
8,789.0
Quality
Black
2021
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Juvenile arrest rate
Other Races
2021
185.9
412.3
201.0
170.6
Quality
Other Races
2021
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Juvenile arrest rate
White
2021
2,581.0
2,631.1
5,101.3
2,800.8
Quality
White
2021
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Juvenile arrest rate
All
2018
3,056.0
2,918.4
4,754.4
3,108.2
Quality
All
2018
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Juvenile arrest rate
Black
2018
17,097.8
25,806.5
13,303.2
8,789.0
Quality
Black
2018
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Juvenile arrest rate
Other Races
2018
185.9
412.3
201.0
170.6
Quality
Other Races
2018
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Juvenile arrest rate
White
2018
2,581.0
2,631.1
5,101.3
2,800.8
Quality
White
2018
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) National Incident Based Reporting System (via Kaplan J (2021). National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) Data. https://nibrsbook.com/); US Census Bureau’s 2021 1-Year American Community Survey. (Time period: 2021)
Notes: The number of arrests of people aged 10 to 17, for any crime or status offense, per 100,000 people of that age. Because people can be arrested multiple times, the data reports the number of arrests and not people. Although these are the best national data source, communities should use their local data if it is available. The FBI cautions against using NIBRS data to rank or compare locales because there are many factors that cause the nature and type of crime to vary from place to place.
Ethnicity is inconsistently collected and often missing in the data. Those of multiple races are only included in ‘Other Races.’
The Confidence Interval for this metric is not applicable.
Additional Notes on Data
Data Quality
“Strong” indicates that the metric is measured with adequate accuracy and sample size.
“Marginal” indicates that there are known shortcomings of the data for this metric for this community, and the metric should be used with caution.
“Weak” indicates that although the metric could be computed for this community, we have serious concerns about how accurately it is measured for this community and do not recommend its use. Instead, we recommend seeking more local data sources for this metric.
Confidence Intervals
Confidence intervals shown are 95 percent.
* This confidence interval is not available at this time.
+ A confidence interval is not applicable.
Lower/Upper bound: The data used to construct this metric do not lend themselves to conventional confidence intervals. The value of the metric shown represents are best estimate; the lower and upper bounds represent alternative estimates of the metric under different assumptions about missing data.
“NC” in fields for confidence intervals or lower/upper bounds means that we are not able to calculate this because the underlying data lack variation.
Missing and Suppressed Values
“NA” in fields for metric values and data quality values indicates that the data are suppressed due to sample sizes or because that element is not applicable to that community (e.g., no zip code in the county is majority non-white).